Hasta La Gadget!

WASHINGTON ― Both Donald Trump and his campaign chairman said Sunday they had nothing to do with altering the Republican Party’s position on Ukraine ― which must have been news to GOP leaders who confirmed last week that Trump’s campaign insisted on exactly that change.

The modified party platform drops its call to provide arms to Ukraine in response to Russia’s occupation of that country’s Crimea province in 2014. It represents a victory for Russian president Vladimir Putin, who soon after annexed the region.

Two Republican National Committee officials acknowledged privately last week that Trump’s campaign pushed for the change, which was made in platform committee meetings in the days prior to the start of the Republican convention in Cleveland two weeks ago.

Nevertheless, the celebrity businessman told ABC News on Sunday that he didn’t even know about the change until afterward.

“I wasn’t involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved,” Trump said.

Meanwhile, his top aide, Paul Manafort ― who for a decade was an adviser to the Russian-backed president of Ukraine until he was removed from office in 2014 ― similarly told NBC News that the new wording was not his idea. “It absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign,” he said.

Neither the Trump campaign nor the Republican National Committee responded to requests for comment Sunday. But last week, two RNC officials praised Trump for not pushing the party’s conservative grassroots activists to alter language on gay marriage or abortion. They said that, apart from the Ukraine change, Trump’s campaign seemed generally uninterested in the platform altogether.

The platform does not bind Republican candidates who win office and is often seen by political professionals as creating unnecessary vulnerabilities for the party. Still, the RNC officials said it was unusual but not surprising that the Ukraine plank was the only thing of concern to the Trump camp, given Manafort’s business ties to the country’s former president, Victor Yanukovych.

In the ABC interview, Trump at first said that Putin would not invade Ukraine: “He’s not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”

But after “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that Putin already had done so, Trump blamed President Barack Obama for it ― but went on to suggest that he might recognize Russia’s claim to the region. “I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also,” he said.

Trump and his campaign have come under increasing criticism over his statements supporting and praising Putin, particularly after the recent theft and public release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. Obama said last week that Russia appeared to be behind the hack, while Trump called on Russia and others to hack into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails. He later said he was being sarcastic.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The roaring crowd, the balloons, the celebrity musicians, and the respected politicians waving from center stage at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this past week were expected.

But something unexpected happened too.

Motherhood was front and center as a source of power in and of itself.

Why unexpected? To be blunt: Motherhood–and discussion of family economic security policies like paid family leave, childcare, and fair pay–have often been avoided as a weakness and liability by women candidates who want to be taken seriously in the past. This avoidance isn’t all together surprising: Being a mom is now a greater predictor of wage and hiring discrimination than being a woman. Moms are judged harsher in the labor force and are taken off the management track for fewer late days.

Many women can’t even make it into a room with a glass ceiling because a maternal wall is blocking the door into that room in the first place: Fewer than 20% of Congress are women, and even fewer are moms. Less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and again even fewer are moms.

Just four short years ago, a controversy erupted when at the 2012 Democratic National Convention First Lady Michelle Obama included that she was “Mom-In-Chief” during her remarks. Simply for uttering those words, the First Lady, among other accusations, was accused of pushing back on equal pay and access to reproductive health care, policies that the First Lady has long vigorously supported.

We’ve come a long way since then. Motherhood–and family economic security policies that lift our economy, businesses, and families like childcare, fair pay, and paid family leave–were in the room in powerful ways at the 2016 DNC. In fact during the DNC this past week, as Hillary and as speaker after speaker took the stage centering their remarks and power in motherhood, the maternal wall crumbled a bit with each word. After all, it’s hard to discriminate against what’s front and center in effective, powerful, and high impact ways that not only lifts moms, but also lifts our nation.

“I am here as a proud mother…” said Chelsea Clinton.

“Most of you know me as United States Senator from New York. But during school drop off and pick up, I’m better known as Theo and Henry’s mom,” remarked U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Our nation, our economy, and our families will be better off when the maternal wall finally falls: 81% of women become moms. Three-quarters of moms are either the primary or co-breadwinner for their families. Women and moms make the majority of purchasing decisions in our consumer-fueled economy. Corporations with more women in leadership earn more corporate profits. And, studies also show that women legislators are more effective than men, passing twice as many bills.

It takes leaders standing up with motherhood and standing up for family economic security policies – like fair pay, childcare, and paid family leave – front and center to change the way we view motherhood, to end pay discrimination, and to break down the maternal wall.

For those reasons, and so many more, the words shared on the DNC stage had rippling impacts that went beyond anything that has to do with the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Arena this past week:

“I’m here as a proud American, a proud Democrat, a proud mother, and tonight in particular, a very, very proud daughter. My mom can be about to walk on stage for a debate or a speech, and it just doesn’t matter. She’ll drop everything for a few minutes of blowing kisses and reading Chugga Chugga Choo Choo with her granddaughter,” were among the very first words of Chelsea Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention as she introduced her mom

“If fighting for affordable childcare and paid family leave is playing woman card, then deal me in… If you believe your working mother, wife, sister or daughter deserves equal pay, join us!” – Hillary Clinton in her Democratic National Convention remarks [2]

“I am here with Hillary Clinton tonight because she is a leader and a mother who will say our children’s names. She knows that when a young black live is cut short, it’s not just a loss, it a personal loss, it’s a national loss, it’s a loss that diminishes all of us.” – Geneva Reed-Veal, the mother of Sandra Bland, one of nine women, Mothers of the Movement, whose unarmed African-American children were killed by police officers or gun violence who spoke at the Democratic National Convention

“Our policies are stuck in the Mad Men era. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t guarantee workers paid family leave. Many women can’t even get a paid day off to give birth. Most parents work outside the home, yet child care can cost as much as college tuition. Families rely on women’s income but we still don’t have equal pay for equal work. This makes no sense because we know that when families are strong, America is strong. Hillary Clinton gets it, not just because she’s a working mom and Charlotte and Aiden’s grandmother but because for her, it’s about her core values – the idea we have that we have a responsibility to one another. It’s who we are as a nation.” – U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

First Lady Michelle Obama centered her remarks in motherhood to lift Hillary Clinton, take down Trump, and invite us all to build a better nation for everyone, referencing the “hateful language” that’s been on TV to remind us all that, “With every word we utter, with every action we take, we know our kids are watching us. In this election and every election is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.”

“As a business woman I can tell you how important family and medical leave is for 21st century jobs. Hillary fought for that. She fought for a higher minimum wage. She knows we build our economy from the middle out.” – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell

With each syllable, these words resonated and reverberated far outside of the Wells Fargo arena, breaking down the maternal wall that is holding our nation back. Hillary Clinton’s bold and brave leadership in centering her power in motherhood and in embracing family economic policies–like affordable childcare, paid family leave, and fair pay–that lift our businesses, economy, and families has opened the door already to more leaders coming behind her.

As we reflect on the outcomes of the DNC, it’s important to not just celebrate the sound of the glass ceiling shattering, but to also celebrate the maternal wall crumbling. After all, as Hillary Clinton said in her DNC remarks: “When there are no ceilings, the sky is the limit.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Months ago, I wrote here about how Bernie Sanders reflected a sea change in American religiosity. At the time, if it was not explicit, I was a supporter of Sanders and was happy to see him come to the current political debate from the Left. And more importantly, he was providing an alternative to many issues that, for me, placed Hillary Rodham Clinton too closely aligned with neo-conservative, imperialist and interventionist positions I normally associate with the Right.

Since that piece was published, Bernie lost the Democratic nomination, and I have seen many of my fellow Bernie supporters shout down at Hillary supporters, both at the convention and on social media. No more than three weeks ago, I too was telling a good friend that there simply was no way I would ever vote for HRC as I proceeded to list our differences on Latin America, the Middle-East, her tardy evolution on LGBT rights, her seeming cozy relationship with big banks, and her insensitivity on matters pertaining to criminality and the prison industrial complex. Her words at a convention won’t change my mind about these issues since I see her as having a long history of saying what suits her politically at the moment.

These are some of the same reasons that people on the Left, including many of my closest friends, still refuse to vote for her. And on this point, in my opinion, they are not only misguided; they are forgetting one of the most critical pieces written by the Leftist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci, an Italian Marxist imprisoned by Mussolini in the 1920s, is a commonly assigned theorist in college courses on political theory and social movements. He is mostly known for his concept of an “organic intellectual,” those people who exercise their political awareness and critique of governmental power outside of the structures of state sponsored training, including standardized educational paths and technical training. That’s an over-simplification of course, as is this short reminder to other liberals and Leftists about Gramsci’s concepts of War of Maneuver and War of Position.

We might benefit here of thinking about Gramsci’s War of Maneuver as direct action: protests, marches, rallying at electoral meetings, and ensuring our voices are heard and bodies are seen by people who would rather we not take space. Bernie supporters have been effective at this type of strategy, as has the #blacklivesmatter movement, just to name a couple examples. Writing from prison, Gramsci offered another mode of achieving political revolution: a War of Position. The long and slow battle for political revolution, for Gramsci, required people to switch from one type of strategy to another, depending on the social context. In the War of Position, people wanting social change would focus on gaining influence in society, in securing a more opportune future for more direct action at a later point, and in mapping out how to shift power relations for the longer, more substantial structural changes.

If you care about Bernie Sanders’ positions, you now have a decision to make. Of course you could refuse to vote for Hillary because you want to prove a point about the lack of democracy exercised by the Democratic Party. But then you would be hurting your long-term goals, because one viable candidate gets you closer to those goals (while possibly not sharing the goal with you), and the other not only takes you farther away, but also erodes viable paths toward those goals. (If you don’t think a Trump presidency would be that bad, simply read the news about Turkey these days, or look at what happens in despotic regimes).

Sanders already pivoted to a War of Position with his backing of Hillary Rodham Clinton. He pivoted when he created his “Our Revolution” plan. He knows that we need more people to engage politics locally. He knows that we need to consider which senators and representatives need our support. He knows that Supreme Court changes are too valuable to throw to chance. To achieve his goals, Sanders knows he needs a Hillary Clinton presidency. Now if only his supporters would pivot with him.

To those of you on the Left: Hillary may not be your candidate of choice. She may even espouse positions you find morally reprehensible. Her nomination may evidence for you all the gross aspects of a two-party political system in the U.S.A. But her presidency is the singular path forward at this point to change the nation to more closely reflect your ideals. Vote begrudgingly if you must. Keep in mind that you have more power in the larger political struggle to not only privately pull the lever for HRC, but convince others to do so as well. Pivoting to Hillary is not an end; her presidency is a means, a temporary position if you will, towards an end.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

While viewed by many as a controversial figure due to his statements on race, religion and politics, Malcolm X is less known for delivering powerful lessons about men, fatherhood and family. One of his lessor known (at least rarely quoted) speeches was on the responsibility of manhood:

It is imperative that a man works. Get off welfare, get out of that compensation line. Be a man, earn what you need for your family, then your family will respect you. They are proud to say that’s my father, she is proud to say that’s my husband. Father means you are taking care of those children. Just because you made them doesn’t mean you are a father. Anyone can make a baby, but anyone can’t take care of them. Anyone can go get a woman, but anyone can’t take care of a woman. Husband means you are taking care of your wife, father means you are taking care of your children…you are accepting the responsibilities of manhood.

When listening to this speech or reading these words, one can only wonder about the context in which they were delivered, and how the dynamics of African American families were changing at the time.

A lot has changed since the 1960s, and the black family in America has reflected this change. Federal statistics have shown that 78% of black households were married couples in 1960, and this percentage would drop to 62% in 1980 (just two decades later). With the rapid change in families came an equally rapid change in expectations and gender roles. With less men in the home, more women went to work to provide for their children, or had to rely on public assistance to make up for the loss of income. An unfortunate consequence of this change in roles was also a change in attitude: With less men in the home to provide for children, came an expectation that fathers were not needed as providers.

Changes in the expectations of men is seen in many fatherhood groups, as well as father engagement programs. In an effort to encourage more fathers to become involved with their children, many fatherhood groups emphasize spending time with children over financially providing for them. The message about the importance of men spending time with their children is an important one. The time fathers and their children spend together helps with bonding and creates a lifetime of memories. Yet time alone should never be seen as a substitute for financially providing for your children. Reflecting on the powerful manhood lesson delivered by Malcolm X, it should be clear that he was not just talking about the responsibilities fathers have to their families (responsibilities to his children and to the mother of his children). Malcolm was teaching men they should never expect anyone else to provide for his children if he is not able to on his own.

The unfortunate reality is that most people will experience financial hardship at some point in their lives, and many men have found themselves unemployed or underemployed. Financial hardship can make it impossible for a man to provide for his family as he would like; however, this position is never one a man should accept or resign himself to. It should be understood that it can be emotionally devastating and shameful when a man can not provide for his children, and this shame may keep many away from their families. Fatherhood programs honorably try to address these feelings by demonstrating a man’s worth is more than a paycheck; however, a healthier approach for the family may be to educate men on what providing for their families means.

In today’s time not every man will be the primary wage earner for their family, but most can contribute to their children’s needs in some way. If a father can not pay a mortgage or rent, he should aim to buy food for the household (groceries for the month or two weeks). If a father can not afford a car, he should try to at least buy clothes and school supplies for his children. If a father can not afford to provide health insurance for his children, then he should try to help pay for medical bills (if only a copay for his children to see the doctor). Fathers should help pay for their children’s diapers and childcare (at least a week or two if he can’t afford to pay for the entire month). When it comes to providing for our children, men should realize that something is better than nothing. We should provide what we can, while working on achieving the goals that will allow us to provide in the way we want to. As we strive to get more men actively involved in their children’s lives, it is important that the necessity of provision is not lost. Fathers should provide for their children, restoring this balance will not only benefit them, it can also be healing for the family as a whole. In the words of Malcolm X, “When a man provides for his family, his children are proud to call him father…his wife is proud to call him husband. You are accepting the responsibilities of manhood”.

Dr. Mark Echols has been working with children and families in both educational and social service settings for the last 16 years. He is a Fatherhood advocate and the creator of Black Dads: Changing the narrative on Fathers in the African American community on LinkedIn. You can connect with Dr. Mark Echols on LinkedIn.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Glory, glory hallelujah! For the first time ever, a qualified female politician has a real shot at becoming President of the United States. After watching the DNC, and supplementing my viewing with thinkpieces galore on every possible election-related issue, I get it: You’re either excited about Hillary’s nom, or you aren’t.

Cool. No harm, no foul.

The country, world, and World Wide Web are currently overrun with moderate and extremist views of every kind on what this nomination means for both the future of women and the future of our country. Trolls are out in full force everywhere from YouTube live-stream comment sections to nothing-but-the-facts Internet articles. What’s more, our deepest-held sexist views are rising to the surface of men and women alike, coming out in conversations at home, school and work.

I know I likely can’t reach people who’ve swung to the far left or right — those who want Bernie or Trump at all costs — but I’ve heard remarks, and made remarks myself, this week that have led me to question why we’re saying certain things about Hillary, and what they can tell us about the current state of sexism in our country. Here are five sexist remarks I’ve heard multiple times from people of all genders, ages and political parties. If you don’t agree that they are sexist, we must at least question, then, why we might be saying these things period.

1. It’s not wrong for Hillary Clinton to want to be president. Painting her as nefarious because she wants to be president is sexist.

A big to-do was make at the convention regarding whether or not Hillary has always wanted to be president, or if she decided she’d like to run for the job later in life. Hillary had already been on record, in both interviews and her memoirs, saying she never considered a career as a politician until the end of her terms as First Lady, when a young female basketball player, Sofia Totti, shook her hand at a public event and said, “Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton. Dare to compete.”

What Totti was asking Clinton to do was get in the game the same way she was encouraging women and girls to all over the globe. To enter the competition, not just cheerlead from the bench. It changed Clinton’s outlook on the possibilities for her own life, and she went on to run for the Senate.

Now that Clinton’s inspiration and reasoning for entering the world of politics has been presented to us for our analysis and discussed from every angle, I have a new question to ask: Who cares?

Was there even one think piece dedicated to when Bernie Sanders might have first thought to run for president, and if he was evil for imagining himself in the role? Why do we collectively believe that it’s wrong for Hillary to want to be president? So many politicians want to be president. It’s the job at the top of their ladder. She clearly wants to do it now. Why can’t we say, “Good for her,” instead of, “When and why?”

2. It is sexist, ignorant, and insulting to suggest that the political system was “rigged” in favor of a woman succeeding.

It is infuriating to me that the most extreme Bernie and Trump supporters are suggesting that the political system was rigged in favor of a woman becoming the democratic nominee. No job in our country, nor perhaps the world, has ever been rigged in favor of a woman securing it.

Hillary Clinton is the first woman ever to accomplish what she has, and she didn’t do it on her first try. If you truly believe the system was rigged in her favor, please go back to 2008 and stay there.

3. No one told Bernie to smile. Stop telling women to smile.

During Hillary’s acceptance speech, Bernie Sanders was caught on camera frowning and blowing air out of his cheeks in disgust. I expected to wake up to hundreds of news articles bashing him for his childish behavior. Instead, I didn’t find any. Okay, fine. But men and women of the world, the next time you see me frowning on a bad day while walking down the street, or the next time Hillary Clinton is caught on camera frowning during something horrible like the Benghazi hearings, show her the same courtesy that’s being shown to Senator Sanders and don’t ask me or her to smile.

4. It’s great that Hillary will work side-by-side with Sanders to make college more affordable. But don’t say she stole his idea — she didn’t.

In her DNC speech, Hillary promised to work directly with Senator Sanders to make college affordable, prompting thousands of folks to shout that she’s simply using him for his original ideas. But instead of exposing Clinton’s lack of originality, they only exposed that they haven’t been paying attention.

I first started really listening to Hillary and considering her as a viable candidate for president when she was the only Democrat talking about college tuition and loans in 2006 and 2007. She promised that if she were elected president, she would do everything in her power to make college affordable to the middle class, to shut down predatory lenders, and to continue to help non-traditional college students receive an affordable education while working and supporting their families. She called for a Student Borrower’s Bill of Rights to give students and families power and leverage when dealing with the private student loan industry, she called for income-based student loan repayment, and an increase of Pell grand funding and funding for AmeriCorps, so that students who gave two years of community service to the country would be written a check toward their higher education.

Things have progressed and changed in the past eight years, and Clinton’s new college plan has adapted with those changes. It’s inspiring and hopeful that Clinton publicly agreed to continue to work with Sanders on these matters, but please stop saying she’s stealing his initiative. It has been her initiative as well for quite a long time, predating Sanders. To ignore what Clinton has done and said regarding any political issue is to prove that you simply haven’t cared to listen to her seriously.

5. Don’t try to make me feel bad or undermine my intelligence because I appreciate the historical significance of Hillary’s nomination from a feminist perspective.

Just like it’s not wrong for Hillary to want to be president, it’s not wrong for me to want a female presidential candidate and president because I am a woman. Yes, being a woman has made me more invested in this election. Yes, I can see how Hillary Clinton becoming Commander in Chief will directly impact my life because I am a woman. There’s nothing wrong with that. Stop trying to convince me that Hillary being a woman shouldn’t matter. That’s exactly the line of thinking that keeps women’s rights plateaued instead of moving forward.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.